Agnostic.com

2 0

“There’s a terrible danger in voting for the lesser of two evils because the parties can set it up that way.”

-- Hunter S. Thompson

WilliamCharles 8 Sep 18
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

For once I believe him.

2

I'm no fan of our two-party system, but is there a pragmatic alternative? Not voting at best has no real impact and at worst just makes it easier for the greater evil to win. Voting for a third-party candidate won't get them to 270 (for the presidential election), so it's the same, for all practical purposes, as not voting. Protest votes don't influence future elections — the public attention span is far too short for that. So, given the options of a run-of-the-mill politician that I know has some problems and won't be the change I'm hoping for, or the nightmare incumbent who is a danger domestically and abroad in terms of safety, security, and moral standing, who fosters division everywhere he goes for his own self interest, who undermines constitutionality and democracy, my choice seems rather clear. I'd love to be more idealistic and hold out for the perfect candidate, but one of two people will win the presidential election this November and there's no changing that (unless one of them dies before then). The only way a third-party candidate will ever win is if we see a grassroots effort take hold at the local and state level first, but I'm not confident that will ever happen.

I will not reward Democratic Party perfidy.

@WilliamCharles So, reward the Republican Party instead? It just feels like cutting my nose off to spite my face.

@resserts

The DNC insists thst Joe is the "safe" nominee. They have nothing beyond "Not Trump!" They're doubling down on the strategy that gave us Dolt 45 in the first place. I'm pretty sure their vote shaming will be no more successful than it was for Madam Pantsuit.

Read about a Berner who was phone banking for Biden (reluctantly) because he thought the circumstances were so dire. He noted that none of the Biden supporters he contacted wanted to join the effort and phone bank. Biden's primary campaign was dead in the water. Even his corporate donors were bailing. The DNC reanimated his zombified corpse and drug him across the finish line.

Win or lose... this is on them. They'd rather lose with Biden than win with a progressive.

Fuggum.

@WilliamCharles I understand what you're saying and I agree that the Democratic Party isn't doing the outreach it needs to do and doesn't have the interests of the people or the Democratic Party members in mind. That's why people should be focused on grassroots reform efforts, rather than waiting for the presidential election to hang all of their hope on every four years. But right now, at this moment, we are looking at one of two candidates being elected in November. Let's focus on systemic reform going forward — that has my full support — but right now I'm looking at four more years of a dangerously bumbling egomaniac in office who's dismantling core values of democratic government versus voting for a milquetoast candidate who isn't as progressive or as inspiring as I'd like.

@resserts They poll. They've got time to make adjustments. Instead it's just virtue signaling and "Orange Man bad."

My CA vote won't matter in the least, but they're treading on thin ice ignoring the battleground districts again. People will sit it out. "Clap harder!" is not a tenable campaign strategy.

@resserts

Like I said, there's still time.

@resserts

This is the only leverage I or anyone else has.

@WilliamCharles Biden won't be shamed into progressive policy, and the DNC won't take to heart another presidential defeat. I wish it were that simple, but I disagree that it will work out the way we'd all like it to.

Like I said, coordinated, local, grassroots efforts could work, but that takes real time and effort — not six weeks, but more like six years (and that's just to get started). Something else that could work to make the voters' will known is a concerted, ongoing effort to contact senators and representatives to let them know what's important to their constituents.

I'm not especially political, but my biggest concern isn't just that Donald Trump will win another four years. Yes, that will be bad, but four years isn't all that long in the grand scheme of things. But bear in mind that Trump will almost certainly be nominating yet another justice to the Supreme Court — maybe more than one. These are changes to the judicial landscape for decades to come.

I dislike the Democratic Party. I also dislike the Republican Party. None of that matters in this election. Medicare for All is a great idea, in my opinion, but if we don't get it done in the next four years it's not going to destroy the healthcare system in this country and we can still work toward it in the meantime through other means, e.g., Congress. On the other hand, if William Barr were appointed to the Supreme Court, that's a grave matter that has far-reaching implications that won't be erased with the next presidential election.

We aren't going to agree on this issue, and that's fine. I don't want to keep spinning our wheels here.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:535289
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.